Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Send a message to the Chief's Office. Copy the mayor and the media/public affairs office.

Chief's Office: mhayden@vbgov.com
Media Affairs: mehobbs@vbgov.com, abernste@vbgov.com
Mayor: wsessoms@vbgov.com

I wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.
Do others, besides me, think it is crazy that you can legally open carry and drink a beer in a bar, but you may not conceal carry legally and drink a beer in a bar? The arguement that the chief of police is making is that a mixture of alcohol and guns is a recipe for trouble, but only while concealed and legally doing so? Thats makes no sense to me. Next, how crazy is it that this chief of police makes this statement when his own officers and himself could, legally conceal and drink off-duty in the same place others cannot in VA. I wonder which special training the police have completed that teach them to drink alcohol and carry guns safely? Ever been to National Police Week in Washington DC? One year, NYPD officers got drunk and fired their weapons off the roof of a downtown DC hotel. Police are people also. If it is dangerous for a citizen with a conceal carry permit to drink and carry, it is also dangerous for a cop to drink alcohol and carry his/her service weapon as well. If it is dangerous for someone to drink and handle/carry a gun, then it should not have mattered if the gun was open-carry or concealed. I have not heard of many, if any, cases of shootings or improper use of handguns in a dangerous manner as a result of someone inside a restaurant in VA, open carry or concealed.

Cops are a "special" class of people under color of law. When Prince John is in power, the Sheriff of Nottingham is a good job to have.

When the King (our Lord Jesus Christ) returns, not so much.

vbrtrmn wrote:Has anyone here ever been to a bar in Virginia? I've been to plenty of restaurants which serve liquor, but I've never actually seen an establishment which only serves liquor. That may be because there are no bars in Virginia, so someone saying they are against conceal carry in bars is like someone saying that they are against stabling unicorns with regular horses

We occasionally go to a place called Sunset Grill in Annandale. It has a kitchen but you never see any food served - only alcohol. Legally I suppose its a restaurant but IMHO its a plain ole biker bar. No unicorns though I'm sure some of the patrons have seen them after a long evening of heavy participation in this "restaurants" primary fare -- liquor...

zephyp wrote:

fireman836 wrote:The only people that the bill allows to mix guns and alcohol
are police officers (on duty, off duty, and retired) and Commonwealth
Attorneys and their deputies.

I think they removed the part that LEO could drink while CCing. Makes us all equal-er...

VA LEO's are exempt from the requirement to have a CHP so the "don't carry and drink" doesn't apply to them.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_Res ... ealed.shtm

A Permit is Not Necessary in the Following Circumstances:



Any person while in his own place of abode or the curtilage thereof.
1.Any person while in his own place of business;
2.Any law-enforcement officer, wherever such law-enforcement officer may travel in the Commonwealth;

Ok, I thought they struck that provision in the language. Here's the link for the new bill the governor will sign. Scroll down to section J3. They changed the original language allowing LEO to drink while carrying concealed...

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 ... ul+HB505H1

Read the latest VA-ALERT with VCDL President Philip Van Cleave's interview by a Virginian-Pilot reporter. It's a pitiful, one-sided, anti-gun hack job, even by the Pilot's standards.

national-politics/alert-pilot-the-truth-irrelevant-t4248.html

9MMDerringer wrote:I wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.
Do others, besides me, think it is crazy that you can legally open carry and drink a beer in a bar

you can open carry there but only if you don't drink, you can lose your CHP for carrying while drunk or under the influence of drugs. I was just in my safety class with a guy who lost is CHP for 5 years for carrying while being drunk.

You can open carry and drink, just not become intoxicated. So a glass of wine with dinner or one beer, is not going to get most in trouble, but yes, you would probably want to keep yourself well below 0.08 alcohol blood level.

wylde007 wrote:

Lexington wrote:What would be any different here?

Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Exactly.

wally626 wrote:You can open carry and drink, just not become intoxicated. So a glass of wine with dinner or one beer, is not going to get most in trouble, but yes, you would probably want to keep yourself well below 0.08 alcohol blood level.

A word of caution about having a drink with your meal while carrying - make sure you are in a good gun friendly place...of course it goes without saying...

hmm, what if you were at home and .09 and had to defend yourself?

GS78 wrote:hmm, what if you were at home and .09 and had to defend yourself?

Drunk in private?

"Drunk in Private", Now thats funny. That was me last night, except the only thing I had to defend myself against was Dr. Bombays finest Gin. And according to my wife, "The Doc won"

DWinter wrote:"Drunk in Private", Now thats funny. That was me last night, except the only thing I had to defend myself against was Dr. Bombays finest Gin. And according to my wife, "The Doc won"

GIN??? Man, you are Hard Core.

I only hit the Bombay Sapphire a couple times a year (Usually just a a Bud Lite guy), but it was such a great day and well you know, one thing lead to another.

Gin is the one thing I cannot and will not drink...blech!!! More power to ya if you like it.

OakRidgeStars wrote:There is a poll in the article. Let's hit it now!

---

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/states- ... nbars-bill


VIRGINIA BEACH - Calling guns in bars a "recipe for disaster," the state's police chiefs have pleaded with Gov. Bob McDonnell to veto legislation that would ease Virginia's concealed weapon laws.

Virginia Beach police Chief Jake Jacocks Jr. sent a letter to McDonnell last week on behalf of the state association of chiefs comparing the combination of firearms and alcohol with drinking and driving.

"We can fully expect that at some point in the future a disagreement that today would likely end up in a verbal confrontation, or a bar fight, will inevitably end with gunfire if you sign this legislation into law," Jacocks wrote.



SB334's requirement that anybody with a gun is prohibited from drinking and could be charged with a misdemeanor is "absurd," Jacocks said, and can't be enforced.

On Tuesday, Jacocks got support from Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms, a McDonnell supporter and gun owner.

"Not only is it stupid," Sessoms said, "I think it could be a fatal mistake."

But their efforts seem unlikely to sway McDonnell.

McDonnell will sign the bill, said Taylor Thornley, the governor's spokeswoman. While McDonnell appreciates the work and comments of the police chiefs, he will "continue to protect and uphold the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens," Thornley said.

The bill deals only with concealed weapons; in Virginia it's legal to carry a gun openly without a permit.

SB334 and its House counterpart, along with legislation that allows gun owners without concealed-carry permits to store firearms in locked vehicle compartments, were among the gun-friendly bills approved by the General Assembly this year. The Democratic-controlled Senate formed a special subcommittee late in the session to kill several gun-rights bills, including a repeal of the state's one-handgun-purchase-a-month limit.

The police chiefs association has opposed the guns in bars bill in the past, but it also had a more sympathetic ear. Former Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine twice vetoed such bills.

The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police didn't come out strongly against the bills during the session because it was spread too thin trying to preserve state funding for police departments, said Dana Schrad, the organization's executive director.

"We didn't duck and cover on this one," Schrad said. "We had to prioritize on budget issues."

The Virginia Sheriffs' Association, the other large law-enforcement lobby in the General Assembly, did not take a stand on the legislation, said John Jones, the organization's executive director.

"No, we're not going down that road," Jones said.

But association members recently did vote on a resolution supporting Second Amendment rights, Jones said.

Jacocks and Schrad did acknowledge that the letter was a last-ditch effort.

"It was important to let him know directly how we felt about this issue," Jacocks said.

If police across Virginia see an increase in gun violence at bars, the association will come back and ask the General Assembly to reconsider its decision, Schrad said.

Statistics on gun-related incidents at establishments with liquor licenses were not available Tuesday.

Before the Supreme Court fully incorporates the 2nd Amendment this June in their McDonald V Chicago ruling, why do people keep talking about a 2nd Amendment Right which today as we sit does not exist. The 2nd Amendment has never been fully applied to the States. I know of no SCOTUS opinion that states the 2nd Amendment enumerates a fundamental or individual right to bear arms at the State level. If you read the entire opinion in Heller V DC it says exactly that. So please let's give that honor where it currently is and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution , i.e to our great State the Commonwealth of VA. As it stands right now, this minute, the right that we all hold dear is actually enumerated in the Virginia Constitution:

[b]Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
[/b]

Btw Virginia's Section 13 was the model for the 2nd Amendment. This is yet another reason to be a proud Virginian. But here’s the paradox: If SCOTUS uses the 14th Amendment to fully incorporate the 2nd Amendment, our section 13 will necessarily yield to the doctrine of federal supremacy. Here's where it gets even stranger. Use of the 14th and 15th Amendments, especially the due process clause, to expand individual rights has been called the sign of an activist SCOTUS by all manner of so-called conservatives and libertarians. Arguably, they are the 2 most hated amendments by self styled conservatives and libertarians.

Some say these 2 Reconstruction Period amendments were never properly ratified by the defeated Confederate States. Remember, they claim those States were coerced into ratification. To avoid the due process clause as an incorporating tool some SCOTUS observers say the McDonald attorneys argued that the "privileges and immunities clauses" found in Art 4 and the 14th Amendment should be used as grounds to overturn Chicago’s gun ban. Justice Scalia quickly and forcefully disparaged that idea as having been settled way back in 1873!
Some are saying the argument was made under "privileges and immunities" because one of the McDonald attorneys stated in an interview that a future "SCOTUS" could use the "due process" clause to find that States may not prohibit same sex marriage. Fancy that!

Even stranger, while SCOTUS seems poised to incorporate the 2nd, if you followed the Q&A, it will be far from an unfettered right. The terms the States may impose substantial or reasonable gun regulations have been thrown around by various SCOTUS judges. Threading this needle is going to be messy for years. In Heller V DC SCOTUS did not define "reasonable" so there's no reason to believe they will define whatever term they choose to limit the right they will find in McDonald V Chicago. SCOTUS found an individual right not specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment in DC case, but they wrote of that right in terms of self defense in the home.
Seems like the originalists and textualists of SCOTUS are now in the same box that they once accused activist judges of being in. They found a right not clearly in the expressed intent of the framers, or enumerated in the text of the document. Like the activist judges they claimed to abhor they looked to English law to find a right of self-defense. They deemed that as a part of natural law. From the right to self defense which is an end, they deduced the means, to wit a gun. In Heller V DC specifically a handgun. At the same time SCOTUS reminded us that Federal Gun Regulations were unaffected by Heller and likely will be unaffected by McDonald..
I smell a 5 to 4 or at best a 6 to 3 sweeping decision with Federal Judges, not States, defining exactly what are reasonable or substantial gun regulations in subsequent litigation. I wonder, do you think it was wise to force Federal supremacy on the States concerning the right to bear arms? Broad Congressional authority to regulate usually comes with Federal supremacy and that is a right Congress clearly does not have at the moment. But post McDonald? Uh oh, like it or not, we will all see. As they say in Las Vegas: Ladies and gentlemen place your bets. The activist Roberts SCOTUS is about to make more new laws!
Gat 6

Jim - the 2nd does indeed exist as its in the Constitution. Furthermore I'm not of the mindset that we need lawyers or SCOTUS to tell use what it says or means. I didnt take the time to read your entire post, but you catch my drift. Our Founders wrote the Constitution for us - we the people - not lawyers and courts...furthermore the Constitution is quite clear about enumerated powers not specifically delegated to congress -- those go to the states and the people.

Well look who is retiring.

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/virgini ... e?cid=srch